Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "fuzzynumb".
Did you mean:
fuzzyname
2019 Aug 09
3
Underscores in package names
...Gabriel Becker wrote:
> Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package name*,
> whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a
> patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
>
CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is
FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game.
Duncan Murdoch
2019 Aug 10
2
Underscores in package names
...d make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid
> *package name*,
> > whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2
> after a
> > patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
> >
> CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is
> FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game.
>
>
> I suppose technically 2 is a valid version number for a package (?) so I
> suppose you have me there. But as Ben pointed out while I was writing
> this, all...
2019 Aug 09
0
Underscores in package names
...gt; Note that this proposal would make mypackage_2.3.1 a valid *package
> name*,
> > whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2 after a
> > patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
> >
> CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is
> FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game.
>
I suppose technically 2 is a valid version number for a package (?) so I
suppose you have me there. But as Ben pointed out while I was writing this,
all I can really say is that i...
2019 Aug 14
0
Underscores in package names
...1 a valid
>> *package name*,
>> > whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2
>> after a
>> > patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
>> >
>> CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is
>> FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game.
>>
>>
>> I suppose technically 2 is a valid version number for a package (?) so I
>> suppose you have me there. But as Ben pointed out...
2019 Aug 15
3
Underscores in package names
...ackage name*,
> >> > whose corresponding tarball name might be mypackage_2.3.1_2.3.2
> >> after a
> >> > patch. Yes its a silly example, but why allow that kind of ambiguity?
> >> >
> >> CRAN already has a package named "FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2", whose tarball is
> >> FuzzyNumbers.Ext.2_3.2.tar.gz, so I think we've already lost that game.
> >>
> >>
> >> I suppose technically 2 is a valid version number for a package (?) so I
> >> suppose you have me there....
2019 Aug 09
7
Underscores in package names
Won't it be better to have a convention that allows lowercase, dash,
underscore and dot as only valid characters for new package names and keep
the ancient format validation scheme for older package names?
This could be implemented by a single function, taking a strictNaming_b_1
parameter which defaults to true. Easy to use, and compliance results will
vary according to the parameter value,